ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2016
ONCOLOGISTS' BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS FOR ONCOTYPE DX USE: QUALITATIVE STUDY.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of precision medicine in treating non-communicable diseases: a systematic review.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Factors Associated With Implementation of Biomarker Testing and Strategies to Improve Its Clinical Uptake in Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using Theoretical Domains Framework.JCO precision oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Socioeconomic- and Insurance-Based Inequities in Oncotype DX Testing and Score-Guided Treatment.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Challenges and barriers for the adoption of personalized medicine in Europe: the case of Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence ScoreDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
- Exploring healthcare personnel's knowledge, barriers, and innovative approaches in personalised oncology medicine: a scoping review.Critical public health · 2025Review
- Disparities in OncotypeDx Testing and Subsequent Chemotherapy Receipt by Geography and Socioeconomic Status.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Patient and physician factors associated with Oncotype DX and adjuvant chemotherapy utilization for breast cancer patients in New Hampshire, 2010-2016.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- A qualitative comparison of how older breast cancer survivors process treatment information regarding endocrine therapy.PloS one · 2019Article
- Clinical use of the Oncotype DX genomic test to guide treatment decisions for patients with invasive breast cancer.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOncotype DX (ODX), a tumor gene profiling test, has been incorporated into clinical guidelines to aid in adjuvant chemotherapy decision making for early-stage, hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients. Despite United States (U.S.) guidelines, less than half of eligible women receive testing. Reasons for low usage are unclear: Our objective was to better understand U.S. oncologists' ODX uptake and how they use ODX during adjuvant chemotherapy decision making.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured, ~30-minute phone interviews with medical and surgical oncologists in one U.S. State using purposive sampling. Oncologists were included if they saw greater than or equal to five breast cancer patients per week. Recruitment ended upon thematic saturation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and double-coded using template analysis.
resultsDuring analysis, themes emerged across three domains. First, organizational factors (i.e., departmental structure, ODX marketing, and medical/insurance guidelines) influenced ease of ODX use. Second, oncologists referenced the influence of interpersonal factors (e.g., normative beliefs and peer use of ODX) over their own practices and recommendations. Third, intrapersonal factors (e.g., oncologist attitudes, perceived barriers, and research gaps) were discussed: although oncologists largely held positive attitudes about ODX, they reported challenges with interpreting intermediate scores for treatment decisions and explaining test results to patients. Finally, oncologists identified several research gaps.
conclusionsAs more tumor gene profiling tests are incorporated into cancer care for treatment decision making, it is important to understand their use in clinical practice. This study identified multi-level factors that influence ODX uptake into clinical practice, providing insights into facilitators and modifiable barriers that can be leveraged for improving ODX uptake to aid treatment decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.